Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]Razorslim wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
One thing we do know about those Christian principled colonists, they were cool with owning people as well. So yeah, let’s look to them for our moral compass. sheesh…[/quote]

With sanctimonious attitudes like this the generation 150 years from now will be blaming your generation for the complete loss of our liberty and Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms
[/quote]

What the hell does that mean? My whole point is that it is kind of silly to look to the colonists as some sort of moral high ground in regards to this issue not to discount the sacrifices and efforts they put into building our great nation.

462

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

It has already been mentioned earlier that there are examples of marriages that don’t have or can’t have children. When comparing gay marriages you have to compare them to all other marriages in which fit these categories which also don’t fit the ideal of being raised by both biological parents

  1. children are biological only to 1 of the 2 parents
  2. no children
  3. adopted children[/quote]

Stop avoiding the question - do you believe it? Do you believe there is no qualitative difference between children being raised by their biological parents and…anyone else?

Just answer it.

Did you really just write that? At one point, there was no racism in human history?

That’s fantastic news. When did this happen? Can’t wait to hear details.[/quote]

Possibly better when raised by biological parents but I don’t know for sure. Yes I really just wrote that. For racism to exist you need to be aware a group of people racially different than you exist.

463

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Possibly better when raised by biological parents but I don’t know for sure.[/quote]

Ok, well, don’t claim that the arrangements are “equal” if you “don’t know for sure”, fair enough?

Ok, so tell me - when did this occur? I look forward to learning about this historical episode you refer to. Very exciting.

464

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
To be honest Chris, all I remember from you is you telling us about how you’ve been calling for the lynching of child molesters as opposed to actually calling for it (I could be wrong though). When it comes to people calling out those among the Catholic Church who have abused children, there is a lot of “well other people do it too!” going on.

Abuse is abuse, Chris. Just talking about how “other people do it too” does nothing.[/quote]

This is going off topic so I’ll make one more post and then we’ll have to start another thread:

You are right, abuse is abuse. That’s why Catholics ask why nothing is being done or said about the huge child molestation problem in public schools while the media seems to put all their attention on a handful of decades old cases within the CC. State judicial systems have suspended the statute of limitations in order to prosecute child molesters, who have they prosecuted during this suspension? Catholic priests, all while the current and bigger problem is ignored in the public schools.

This has nothing to do with shifting blame, it has to do with justice and bigotry. The media doesn’t care about stopping child molesters, otherwise if they did proportionally they wouldn’t have had 2000 articles about catholic priests while having a measly 4 (I think) articles about the far larger problem of child molesters in public schools. [/quote]

Going off my own recollection of a child molesting teacher (male in his 40’s, molested an 11 year old girl in my school), he was metaphorically strung up and castrated. Last I heard he was homeless after getting out of prison. His wife left him and took his kids, and he has no shot in hell of getting a job.

I don’t know about where you live, but where I grew up, there was no hiding school teachers who were child abusers.

Can’t say the same for Catholic priests (and other denominations).[/quote]

America. Anyway, if you wish to discuss further. Make another thread, please. kthxbai.

465

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Didn’t read, and I’m not gonna get much into this garbage, but if same sex marriage will be supported then we also must support:

  1. Incestual marriage
  2. Inter-generational marriage
  3. Polygamous marriage

That is all[/quote]

lol…

This guy sounds like that bitched about people having interracial marriages. DAT SLIPPERY SLOPE![/quote]

Yeah, sure if substance is the same accident. Hint: it’s not.

466

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:<<< Never once did I condemn interracial marriage. Not once.[/quote]He’s saying that you sound like the people who once did which is laughably false.
[/quote]

Those same slippery slope arguments were used to try to preserve laws against miscegenation, so I’m not sure why you think his claim is “laughably false”.

[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
incompetent.
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia,
from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283,
quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)
[/quote]

…really? You know this is not a sound argument against the one provided? You know this is a completely fallacious argument that holds no water?

467

[quote]storey420 wrote:
One thing we do know about those Christian principled colonists, they were cool with owning people as well. So yeah, let’s look to them for our moral compass. sheesh…[/quote]

Wow, great argument. I believe that’s called Guilty by Association.

468

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Again it has to be studied first.[/quote]

It has been, been around for 1000’s of years.

469

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Possibly better when raised by biological parents but I don’t know for sure.[/quote]

Ok, well, don’t claim that the arrangements are “equal” if you “don’t know for sure”, fair enough?
[/quote]

Well what do you know about this that is for sure?

470

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well what do you know about this that is for sure?[/quote]

You mean, how can I be sure that children are going be better raised by the two parents that brought them into the world through the most natural union of the universe and share the common connection of being equally responsible for the creation of the person - creation, not a typo - and who when they bring a child into the home for the first time and say in a misty-eyed, voice-shaken “we made that” (as all parents do) when the recognition hits them that they have just created a human being they would lay down their lives for), they realize that that emotion and sentiment and sense of duty cannot be duplicated for any other personal relationship they will ever encounter in their lives (including between one another)?

How can I be sure that the the two best people to take care of the child are the people to whom the children literally owe their existence?

How can I be sure, given that nearly every adopted child maintains a desperate desire to connect with their birth parents because they feel something is missing in their lives until they do?

How can I be sure, given that thousands of years of human history demonstrate there is no substitute for the connection between parent and child, no matter how many times we try to interfere with it?

How can I be sure, given that recent studies have explained that even by modern “metrics”, the scientific community agrees that children are best served by living with their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage?

How can I be sure, given that common sense can’t dictate a different conclusion?

I’m sure.

471

If biological parents aren’t the best for children, why does the government give preference to biological parents in cases of custody?

472

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If biological parents aren’t the best for children, why does the government give preference to biological parents in cases of custody?[/quote]

Clearly, bigotry.

473

Somebody who thinks that children will see anybody except their biological parents as the same as their biological parents, even if they are a fine faithful traditional couple, cannot have children. There is an affinity and an attachment to one’s natural birth parents that will never exist between any other people.
EDIT: I should add that this goes the other way too. There is a real sense in which someone can love another child as their own, but the fullest expression of parental attachment will only ever exist for one’s own biological children.

474

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well what do you know about this that is for sure?[/quote]

You mean, how can I be sure that children are going be better raised by the two parents that brought them into the world through the most natural union of the universe and share the common connection of being equally responsible for the creation of the person - creation, not a typo - and who when they bring a child into the home for the first time and say in a misty-eyed, voice-shaken “we made that” (as all parents do) when the recognition hits them that they have just created a human being they would lay down their lives for), they realize that that emotion and sentiment and sense of duty cannot be duplicated for any other personal relationship they will ever encounter in their lives (including between one another)?

How can I be sure that the the two best people to take care of the child are the people to whom the children literally owe their existence?

How can I be sure, given that nearly every adopted child maintains a desperate desire to connect with their birth parents because they feel something is missing in their lives until they do?

How can I be sure, given that thousands of years of human history demonstrate there is no substitute for the connection between parent and child, no matter how many times we try to interfere with it?

How can I be sure, given that recent studies have explained that even by modern “metrics”, the scientific community agrees that children are best served by living with their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage?

How can I be sure, given that common sense can’t dictate a different conclusion?

I’m sure.[/quote]

What I do know for sure is you are good at sidetracking me to something irrelevant to the real issue.

475

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What I do know for sure is you are good at sidetracking me to something irrelevant to the real issue.[/quote]

Irrelevant? I answered a question you asked of me.

476

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]sufiandy wrote:What I do know for sure is you are good at sidetracking me to something irrelevant to the real issue.[/quote]Irrelevant? I answered a question you asked of me.[/quote]Aside from your remarks being quite to the point, please see Hijack Haven. Anybody else too.

477

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Razorslim wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
One thing we do know about those Christian principled colonists, they were cool with owning people as well. So yeah, let’s look to them for our moral compass. sheesh…[/quote]

With sanctimonious attitudes like this the generation 150 years from now will be blaming your generation for the complete loss of our liberty and Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms
[/quote]

What the hell does that mean? My whole point is that it is kind of silly to look to the colonists as some sort of moral high ground in regards to this issue not to discount the sacrifices and efforts they put into building our great nation.[/quote]

It means you have been brainwashed and are too ignorant to realize it or do anything about it

478

[quote]Razorslim wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Razorslim wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
One thing we do know about those Christian principled colonists, they were cool with owning people as well. So yeah, let’s look to them for our moral compass. sheesh…[/quote]

With sanctimonious attitudes like this the generation 150 years from now will be blaming your generation for the complete loss of our liberty and Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms
[/quote]

What the hell does that mean? My whole point is that it is kind of silly to look to the colonists as some sort of moral high ground in regards to this issue not to discount the sacrifices and efforts they put into building our great nation.[/quote]

It means you have been brainwashed and are too ignorant to realize it or do anything about it[/quote]

Umm, OK, brilliant response…really.

479

922×880 351 KB

http://www.theatheistpig.com/comics/2012-05-16.jpg

480

There you go again Ephrem. I will valiantly resist your brazen attempt to take this thread unforgivably off topic into an area that’s been addressed several thousand times and I jist know you ain’t puttin this stereotype on me. I know this because my entire posting history in this regard is a long standing rebuttal of the very message of this ill informed and infantile cartoon.